This story will teach you about the sublime uselessness of morality.
Halfway through the Peloponnesian War, the Athenians decided to complete their hegemony over the Aegean Sea by capturing the only remaining island not yet under their control, the island of Melos. Melos was originally a Spartan colony, but as the war between Sparta and Athens raged on, Melos remained neutral. This was not good enough for Athens. The Athenians took a fleet to Melos to demand monetary tribute and, should they refuse, press war.
Before waging war, the Athenians sent an envoy to try and negotiate with the Melians. The envoys, instead of being given an audience in front of the people of Melos, were taken aside to speak with the magistrates and other powerful men of the island. When greeted in such a fashion, the Athenians opened,
Since the negotiations are not to go on before the people, in order that we may not be able to speak straight on without interruption, and deceive the ears of the multitude by seductive arguments which would pass without refutation (for we know that this is the meaning of our being brought before the few), what if you who sit there were to pursue a method more cautious still! Make no set speech yourselves, but take us up at whatever you do not like, and settle that before going any farther. And first tell us if this proposition of ours suits you.
And the stage was set. Because the discussion would be held apart from the masses, there would be no need for rhetoric, flowery language, or flattery. This would be a frank and no-bullshit rejoinder with only self-interest as a guide.
Understanding the great danger they were facing, the Melians replied,
To the fairness of quietly instructing each other as you propose there is nothing to object; but your military preparations are too far advanced to agree with what you say, as we see you are come to be judges in your own cause, and that all we can reasonably expect from this negotiation is war, if we prove to have right on our side and refuse to submit, and in the contrary case, slavery.
In other words, the Melians did not feel they had much of a choice – war or slavery. What could they do except resist in the face of such outcomes? But the Athenians were unmoved, and their reply tells a man everything he needs to know about humanity and morality:
For ourselves, we shall not trouble you with specious pretenses — either of how we have a right to our empire because we overthrew the Mede, or are now attacking you because of wrong that you have done us — and make a long speech which would not be believed; and in return we hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join the Spartans, although their colonists, or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
And the offer was made: do what the strong want, or be crushed regardless of any protests to the contrary. For what else was there to say? The Athenians ruled the Aegean Sea, and Melos was powerless to stop them.
The Melians then tried to persuade the Athenians to halt their invasion. They argued morality – that it would be wrong to attack a neutral nation, and should Athens lose the war the Spartans would show no mercy to Athens due to their treatment of their colony Melos. But the Athenians merely replied that they were less concerned with being defeated by Sparta and more concerned with appearing strong to the rest of the city-states they controlled in the Aegean Sea – for should they let Melos remain free, it may embolden other Athenian tributary states enough to revolt.
The Athenians commanded them to either pay tribute to the Athenian empire or be destroyed. The Melians refused, and told them they would hold out for Spartan assistance. The Athenians remarked,
…we are struck by the fact, that after saying you would consult for the safety of your country, in all this discussion you have mentioned nothing which men might trust in and think to be saved by. Your strongest arguments depend upon hope and the future, and your actual resources are too scanty, as compared with those arrayed against you, for you to come out victorious.
[…]
…it is certain that those who do not yield to their equals, who keep terms with their superiors, and are moderate toward their inferiors, on the whole succeed best.
The Melians held against the Athenian siege for six months, until, as Thucydides reports,
Reinforcements afterwards arriving from Athens in consequence, under the command of Philocrates, son of Demeas, the siege was now pressed vigorously; and some treachery taking place inside, the Melians surrendered at discretion to the Athenians, who put to death all the grown men whom they took, and sold the women and children for slaves, and subsequently sent out five hundred colonists and inhabited the place themselves.
Then the Melians were no more. And the crimes the Athenians committed on that day were forgotten. At the end of the Peloponnesian War, with Sparta victorious, Athens was not punished in any significant way. It was Sparta who suffered the worst fate, as they were eventually conquered and utterly destroyed by the Thebians (who became strong because the Spartans eradicated the Plataeans). Meanwhile, Athens lived on, and continues to this day.
Out of everything I have discovered, there does not appear to be a truth more basic than this one. Forget notions of morality, karma, or afterlife justice – this world bows only to the strong, who do as they please, while the weak struggle to stay above the rising tides of history. If one wishes to take the advice given by the Kings here, then he must remember that the world he lives in operates according to this law, and, whenever faced with conflict, he must ask:
Who are the strong? Who are the weak? And to which category do I belong?
Therein will you find the answer to whatever situation you may be.
Read Next: What Does It Feel Like To Be Betrayed By Your Own Country?
(Note: For those who wish to read the entire dialogue written in masterful prose, I found a decent online translation here. Still not as good as a translation offered from Strassler’s edition, however.)
Wow, what a selective reading of history and Thucydides. Do you remember the Plague of Athens that struck while the city was under siege by the Spartans, the rule of the Thirty Tyrants afterwards. Sorry but after the Peloponnesian War Athens was not the power it was before. Even it’s legacy was that of the philosophers who condemn exactly the manner of thinking you advocate here.
I don’t think he’s advocating it, just advising us to keep it in mind. Most of us are usually in the category of the “weak” after all
The point of Thucydides’ work is that Athens earned so much bad blood that no one was willing to back their plays anymore. However more Greek city states (as well as foreign allies) started to back the Spartans. In the end despite the power Athens wielded with its’ military machine they ended up being Sparta’s bitch. True a generation or two later Thebes defeated Sparta, due to Sparta’s lack of tactical flexibility and manpower issues. Thebes was, as well as the rest of the Classical Greek City States, were finally subjugated by Philip of Macedon. The only thing that kept Athens from being totally put under was the desire of the Macedonians to preserve the artistic and philosophic works preserved in ‘the school of Greece.’
In fact one of the things the Spartans did was force Athens to tear down it’s walls.
Combined with Sparta destroying the Athenian navy, Athens was down for several decades.
Thank God Christianity put an end to this thinking and we were able to build a great civilization. Although, now with Christianity on the wane, we see it coming back here.
Irony at best.
Yes, one can easily see Christianity’s touching morality in the merciless slaughter of Jerusalem, Damietta, Constantinople, Beziers and many others.
But Christianity has the mightiest being of them all: “God”, although philosophically speaking might does not=right. The mightiest imposes his will on the weak.
Re: 3 last sentences – hm, kind of an anti-underdog theme you’ve got going on? Sure, the Athenians definitely won that day. But plenty other examples of the ‘weak’ winning the day, and others of them losing but dying with a lot more dignity and being remembered quite fondly by history. Seediq Bale rebellion in Taiwan against the Japanese, is one example that comes to mind…the Seminole tribes vs USA, Partisan resistance to Nazi’s….the list goes on quite long. Should the “weaker” groups of men in those cases have analyzed the situation and said “who are the strong”?
What do we have to push for if not to go all out to overcome a superior opponent, even if the professed ‘odds’ are against us. Fuck appeals to morality/right v wrong when negotiating. But are you going to tell me that fighting to the death against a stronger opponent, is the less ‘masculine’ approach to conflict resolution than bending over and “accepting your place”.
Hmm…don’t forget to add that the Mighty US lost against the weaker Vietnamese during the Vietnam War.
Am a little confused though with that US military poster in the article that reads ‘Right is Might’…doesn’t that contradict the title of the post? Wouldn’t ‘Might is Right’ more in line with the Athenian mindset, and ‘Right is Might’ appropriate for the Melian mindset?
But I wonder: a gunamn approaches you in the dead of night and aims a loaded pistol at your breast and demands your wallet, do you find that he’s got the right to your wallet because he’s got the might (pistol), Samseau?
The gunman scenario? Kung Fu is the answer assuming your arms are quicker than the trigger finger…
You’re missing the point…which I will state it in a rhetorical ploy: does might make right?
I was joking around of course….
“Mind makes right” is the phrase I’d use. Might is a tricky issue as it does not always guarantee victory.
No because bullies don’t have a lot of friends that are willing to risk themselves to cover the bully’s back. If you actually read Thucydides that is the upshot of his work.
Might is useless without a proper mind. A proper mind ensures the most efficient utilization of might and the increase thereof. Might however certainly makes things easier and increases the no. of options.
The human mind enabled us to turn the tables on the stronger, faster and nastier sabre-tooth tigers, wooly mammoths, Lions and other vicious creatures. With the mind we fashioned technology that exponentially increased our power until we dominated this planet.
We may not have physical might as much as the animals that preyed on us. But intellectual might we do have.
“Am a little confused though with that US military poster in the article that reads ‘Right is Might’…doesn’t that contradict the title of the post? ”
No. The point of this article is that there is no difference between might and right. If you have right, then it’s because you’re mighty (or the mighty support you). But if you have might, then you have the right.
Note that if someone is wronged while in the right, it simply means that the strong did not give them their rights.
” a gunamn approaches you in the dead of night and aims a loaded pistol at your breast and demands your wallet”
I never carry my wallet in public. I never deliberately weaken myself.
The guy with the gun thinks he has the right to take your shit.
You, unarmed, think you have the right to hold on to your shit.
Guess which one is more right when the trigger goes off.
Only when you’re dead will society, with its might greater than that of the gunman, enforce its sense of what’s right.
Morality is subjective. Might makes right.
The fact that might determines who wins neither supports nor refutes the existence of any morality. It just supports the conclusion that without strength, what you want doesn’t matter, if you’re strong it does.
Indeed, any nation or individual should want to be as strong as possible. However, once that strength has been acheived, there may be ways to exercise that strength that are more moral (and perhaps effective) than others.
The Soviets were far less constrained in either their foreign or domestic policies than the West, and they lost the Cold War. The Soviets dominated East Germany far more than the US dominated the West, and the moment the GDR could get out from the Soviet thumb, they did. Germany is now our ally.
Samseau can’t extrapolate from a rational international relations strategy to the conclusion that absolute individual moral standards don’t exist. He just leapt from one to the other without bothering to connect them.
Actually, the deeper point of this article and really the whole manosphere is that nature (read: women) don’t give a shit about your morals – which you likely picked up from dubious sources anyway (unless your Christian).
The first half of your point is on target.
As to non-Christian moral systems having dubious sources, you’re off the mark. Even the Bible argues that non-Christians can grasp basic moral truths by virtue of being humans made in God’s image.
The first half of your point is on target.
As to non-Christian moral systems having dubious sources, you’re off the mark. Even the Bible argues that non-Christians can grasp basic moral truths by virtue of being humans made in God’s image.
The first half of your point is on target.
As to non-Christian moral systems having dubious sources, you’re off the mark. Even the Bible argues that non-Christians can grasp basic moral truths by virtue of being humans made in God’s image.
The first half of your point is on target.
As to non-Christian moral systems having dubious sources, you’re off the mark. Even the Bible argues that non-Christians can grasp basic moral truths by virtue of being humans made in God’s image.
The first half of your point is on target.
As to non-Christian moral systems having dubious sources, you’re off the mark. Even the Bible argues that non-Christians can grasp basic moral truths by virtue of being humans made in God’s image.
The first half of your point is on target.
As to non-Christian moral systems having dubious sources, you’re off the mark. Even the Bible argues that non-Christians can grasp basic moral truths by virtue of being humans made in God’s image.
The first half of your point is on target.
As to non-Christian moral systems having dubious sources, you’re off the mark. Even the Bible argues that non-Christians can grasp basic moral truths by virtue of being humans made in God’s image.
The first half of your point is on target.
As to non-Christian moral systems having dubious sources, you’re off the mark. Even the Bible argues that non-Christians can grasp basic moral truths by virtue of being humans made in God’s image.
I don’t know if it comes across correctly, but when I wrote non-Christian I meant Disney movies/Hollywood/TV/blue pill parents rather than non-Christian religions or even moral intuitions.
I don’t know if it comes across correctly, but when I wrote non-Christian I meant Disney movies/Hollywood/TV/blue pill parents rather than non-Christian religions or even moral intuitions.
I don’t know if it comes across correctly, but when I wrote non-Christian I meant Disney movies/Hollywood/TV/blue pill parents rather than non-Christian religions or even moral intuitions.
I don’t know if it comes across correctly, but when I wrote non-Christian I meant Disney movies/Hollywood/TV/blue pill parents rather than non-Christian religions or even moral intuitions.
I don’t know if it comes across correctly, but when I wrote non-Christian I meant Disney movies/Hollywood/TV/blue pill parents rather than non-Christian religions or even moral intuitions.
I don’t know if it comes across correctly, but when I wrote non-Christian I meant Disney movies/Hollywood/TV/blue pill parents rather than non-Christian religions or even moral intuitions.
Ah.
True, a strong man may be able to lift a fridge, but the meek man can lift it and put it down without damage. Overall, I agree with the article, we humans are cruel and unforgiving. Appeals to morality are often the last resort of the weak who cannot stop enemy tanks in their streets, and rape tents outside their family door.
Diplomats are only efficient, if those they are speaking with know the diplomat’s government has an effective military or economic response to back it up.
That is the thing that pisses me off the most about staunchly brainwashed liberals or conservatives who cannot see that their politicians are no different than the other side they hate. Both are merely using the subjects for their own personal gain. Their “party” is merely the tool they use to get into party (or the stooges they have to convince to get them there). They cry about benefits, because they feel they are in power.
Yet their in lies the point of the script flipping. Like the Spartans loss of the proles, and eventually succumbing to outsiders, being strong is not the same as strong and foolish. Of course, being “wise” without the associated strength is stupid and irresponsible.
The clarion call of the lazy is the siren song to the strong who will be their replacement. No matter, both wind up dead, but one just lives longer.
“Be kind to others”
“… the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”
Dude, this was totally refuted by The Karate Kid.
…sweep the leg.
Now, crane kick his face.
With the strategies of Sun Tzu the weak nation gains supremacy over the strong nation. And itself becomes mighty in its place.
Great article Samseau, I’m not sure most people will get it though. Who cares what happened to the Athenians after the conquest of the Melians, how did that Karma help the Melians? They were still destroyed. Strength is power, the meek perhaps will one day inherit the earth, but in the meantime the strong rule.
Perhaps I’m nitpicking here, but karma can only really be understood alongside the idea of eternal existence…it’s not a concept that was ever meant to apply to a single lifetime or even a single historical era. Most westerners take karma out of its frame so it rarely does make any sense when thus (mis)applied.
Anyway, what happens after Melos is important because of cause and effect…Athenian arrogance and selfishness caused Greece to unite against them, and due to this Athens fell into weakness and irrelevance, turning on its brightest citizens in the process. What good is a conquest if it merely hastens you to defeat and humiliation?
The strong do rule the earth, there’s no doubt about that, but those who temper strength with wisdom tend to rule it longer, and to greater effect.
This is what I never understood about you megalomaniacs. “The meek shall inherit the earth” has been proved again and again and again. Who resides in the chair of the Magisterium which prevails over billions in an unbroken line for two thousand years to this day? Is it the heir to Simon the Galilean fisherman or the heir to IMPERATOR CAESAR DIVI F AVGVSTVS?
Stalin once snarked, “The Pope! How many divisions has he got?” John Paul showed him in 1991. The kingdom of this world fights with puny pop-guns. The Kingdom of God fights with patience and the inexhaustible, indomitable blood of martyrs. Therefore “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
The fake “strong” can’t even rule themselves, much less others. The meekness of true humility — which kneels before no man but before only the Lord God himself — unites our infinitesimal human power with the infinite, and reduces every tyrant’s arrogant design back to the dust it truly is.
Matt
You do realize the papacy, at many points in its history, did indeed lead divisions and entire armies, right? That old forgery, the “Donations of Constantine”, was in their eyes justification for acting as a nation-state with all the attendant martial trappings.
And that’s before “the heir to Simon the Galilean” struck a deal with that famous figure of pious humility, Benito Mussolini. It goes to show: religion doesn’t beat the strong, it just teams up with them.
“The Strong” in the bronze age was simply the side with more troops, The larger mob ruled the battle field. And the larger mob ruled world politics. Sparta and Athens needed every ally, every land they could conquer and produce troops from to add to their side as they snowballed their armies larger and larger.
We live in a world after the machine gun was invented. Five minutes with any first person shooter will show you the result of body wave attacks by mobs today.
In history, relations between nation-states have rarely if ever been governed by conventional moralities. Nations and empires cannot be governed by pater nosters. International relations, still to this day, are governed by the law of the jungle. Stalin said it best when he noted: “Every [state] imposes his own system as far as his army can reach. It cannot be otherwise”.
But this doesn’t mean morality is useless. Among people, families, groups, tribes, it is profoundly important and society would become anarchy without it. Some sort of moral code is absolutely critical to keep man’s baser instincts under control.
Well said.
yeah, cos ‘absolute moral niceness’ such as The International Criminal Court, Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, WHO, MSF, IRC, Climate deals and Universal declaration of human rights are obviously so far out-there they are clearly a threat.
Srsly – get in to the sea you efing wingnuts.
It’s not so much that one can’t be moral and compassionate, it’s just needs to be balanced with self-interest and pragmatics. In the West, politics has gone too far by putting absolute moral niceness above realistic interests.
Then the Melians were no more. And the crimes the Athenians committed on that day were forgotten.
The crimes were forgotten? Didn’t Thucydides, well, document them? And aren’t we still talking about it on a blog thousands of years later?
Forget notions of morality, karma, or afterlife justice – this world bows only to the strong, who do as they please, while the weak struggle to stay above the rising tides of history.
As a matter of statesmanship, this is only partially correct. Strength can be wasted, which is why Sparta won the war. When the Athenians massacred Melos, it reminded all their enemies that there could be no peace so long as Athens was strong, and encouraged them to aid Sparta if they could. A better guide would be Machiavelli, who advised that one should be respected and feared, but not hated.
Meanwhile, Athens lived on, and continues to this day.
Nonsense on stilts: the Athenian empire is dead. And if you mean that their accomplishments live on, then so do their crimes against Melos.
athens is where the greek seat of government is to this day mind you.
Yes, but modern Athens is essentially a completely new city built around a bunch of ruins starting in the 19th Century. It has no connection to the Athens of antiquity apart from the ground it sits on.
Very true. In rushing to claim the Melian Dialogue as a moral template, the greater point escapes Samseau. How do we even know about this argument? It’s because Thucydides, an Athenian general, decided:
The astonishing accomplishment was not yet one more reiteration (albeit the most articulate reiteration in antiquity) of “Vae victis.” The reason why we read Thucydides centuries later is because the victor felt it necessary to present the Melians’ moral case. Otherwise “the compositions of … chroniclers … are attractive at truth’s expense.”
Our present culture is saturated with the Athenian case. We don’t need more of it. We need to hear the Melian argument, even if we are to ignore it. The Athenians ultimately did ignore it, didn’t they? But they also felt it necessary to hear the case, and to have it repeated all the way down to us.
There’s a reason why the quoted passage is called both “Melian” and “Dialogue.” What made Athens unique was this Thucydidean detachment from their own interests, which created and recorded for all-time a dialogue with the conquered to pursue something higher than mere precarious conquest: the truth. If not for this lesson above “the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must,” we never would have known the Melos had presented an alternative. We might not have known they existed at all.
In any event, these kind of explorations into the classics are precisely what this community needs in order to take the next step. Bravo.
Matt
The Melian dialogue is very uncomfortable reading for Western democrats. On the one hand we are told that Athens is the founder of democracy. Yet, Athens told the Melians to pay up or else. And when they didn’t pay they eradicated them.
I don’t think Moldbug has mentioned Melos, but he could, because his writing is all about this.
It just goes to show that democracy in and of itself is no virtue, and that those who place their faith of a better world in democratic governance have misplaced that faith.
Nobody could defeat little Afghanistan. The list includes the U.S, Alexander the Great’s Macedonia, and the U.S.S.R…the graveyard of mighty empires…
Might doesn’t make right…people forget the MIND makes right.
Terrible comparison– apples and oranges. If winning a conventional war in Afghanistan was the goal, it would have been done years ago. Nation building is a different story.
Afganistan is …the graveyard of mighty empires……the graveyard of mighty empires…
Afghans beat the hell out of American soldiers. The goat herders…
Might makes right is bullshit….if the mind behind it has no sense of truth and knowledge of history.
To be honest, many of my buddies work who work at the DoD on statistics grants tell me that the war is basically over and as far as destroy al Qaeda + a bunch of other random terrorist organizations goes – we’ve won. The drones changed everything.
This article is the kind of shit that makes me lament for modern manhood. Whoever wrote this piece trash obviously doesn’t know one thing about the Peloponnesian fucking War.
The crime the Athenians committed against the Melians was not forgotten. Not even close. Nay, it’s famous. It is featured in the most famous part of Thucydides’ account of the war. Any student of Greek history worth his salt knows about it. If it really had been forgotten, then why does the writer know about it?
Athens didn’t suffer any consequences? Uh, hello, the ATHENIANS LOST THE WAR!!!! This writer made the staggeringly false claim that it was Sparta who lost! What the fuck? Athens lost!!! Sparta and its allies defeated Athens because the Athenians were bullying people around. The Melians told Athens that doing so would lead to their own destruction. And the Melians were right!!! After the war, Athens really never regained its prestige. Its Golden Age was finished.
It’s so sad and pathetic how so many men wet themselves fantasizing about wronging people and “getting away it.” No wonder there are so many goddam feminists if so many men are saying this crap. If people like this writer really believe the shit they say, they’d totally be singing hymns to Hitler. But they don’t because they’re retarded or are cowards.
Those who believe might makes right are the bad guys. Until this Nietzschean nonsense is laid waste, feminism will have an excuse to exist. Men are men when they become heroes, not self-destructive psychopathic wastes of space. Time to shape up men and stop saying stupid shit.
…you might be right but I’ll never know; I stopped reading after “nay”.
Poor baby.
The Athenians didn’t lose the war because of Melos, the Athenians lost the war because of the disastrous Syracuse campaign.
Bascially, it’s a cautionary tale against democracy. Thucydides explains that the braying mob voted for a campaign against pro-Spartan Syracuse where a wise general would have concentrated their forces on the main war: the one against Sparta.
“The Athenians didn’t lose the war because of Melos.”
I didn’t say that.
What the Athenians did to Melos was what they were doing to many others. And that’s why many Greeks (e.g. Sparta) teamed up and defeated Athens. The Melians warned Athens that their bullying behavior would be their downfall. They were right. That’s all I’m saying.
“The Melians warned Athens that their bullying behavior would be their downfall. They were right”
No they were wrong. It was military overstretch that was their downfall.
Right, they bullied one too many.
J is right. “Military Overstretch” just means they bullied too many people. Thucydides said that Sparta attacked Athens because their power was becoming too great. Melians were dead on.
No it doesn’t. This sort of bullying – kill all the men, sell the women and children into slavery was pretty standard in the ancient world.
Yeah, it was standard, and Athens did it a lot (the most among the Greeks), which made them hated, so they were attacked and defeated. Learn from history. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this shit out.
Learn from history??? In your reading you seem to have missed the bit, where many Greeks hated the Spartans because their slave class were Messenians who were fellow Greeks. Having ethnic Greek slaves was a big no-no.
And don’t apply your 21st century morality to ancient societies.
Yes, I know Spartans had slaves too. And this contributed to its downfall too, but later on. At first, Sparta largely kept its oppression localized in the southern Peloponnesus. Athens, on the other hand, was expanding all over the place, hence, bullying more people, thus signing their own death sentence. After the Peloponnesian War, the victorious Spartans began playing the bully (the Spartan Hegemony). The Helots (Spartan slaves), like always, were rebelling, sapping Sparta’s resources, while Sparta also had to defend itself from the Greek polises who were now teaming up against them. On top of that, Spartan eugenic policies (i.e. killing their infants who seemed weak) also helped reduce their numbers. What happened because of all this? Sparta fell.
“And don’t apply your 21st century morality to ancient societies.”
What the fuck is that suppose to mean?
No, you completely missed the point. The Spartans had GREEK slaves, rather than barbarian slaves.
Oh, forget it…
“No, you completely missed the point. The Spartans had GREEK slaves, rather than barbarian slaves.”
Yeah, got it. And furthermore, irrelevant. Whether a society had Greek slaves or non-Greek slaves, it helped contribute to the downfall of that society. Sometimes, might makes stupid. One must not turn off his brain when he is mighty, because he can destroy not only others but himself. Use might TO DO right. Otherwise, you’re a waste of space, and you further discredit the masculine gender and empower the feminists once again. I’m fucking sick and tired of that shit.
“Oh, forget it…”
Yeah, that’s right. Walk away.
Valid point.
To be fair, the overstretch was a consequence of their bullying.
That reminds me of Hitler attacking the USSR while still engaged against Britain.
“If people like this writer really believe the shit they say, they’d totally be singing hymns to Hitler.”
Lmfao. What an absolutely retarded non-sequitur. Of course, anyone bringing up Hitler as an argument against anything is usually a juvenile weakling to begin with.
The point the writer is making here is that might makes REALITY, which is simply true.
Ballomar summed up the rest.
I’ll avoid any discussions about abstract notions of morality because they’re usually useless clusterfuckish shitstorms.
“What an absolutely retarded non-sequitur. Of course, anyone bringing up Hitler as an argument against anything is usually a juvenile weakling to begin with.”
You’re just a coward and can’t fess up to your fucked up logic. If you believe might makes right, then Hitler was right. Don’t say “You can’t bring up Hitler in an argument” because that’s just fucking retarded.
“I’ll avoid any discussions about abstract notions of morality because they’re usually useless clusterfuckish shitstorms.”
If you’re not willing to think abstractly, then you’re a woman. Be a man and use your fucking reason. Or else, be submissive to someone who will.
Germany didn’t win the war, so they’re now viewed as “wrong”. It’s a perfect example of the FACT that might makes right. Those who win, who express the most MIGHT, write history and declare themselves to be RIGHT. The losers don’t exist to defend the past and correct the history. There is no instance where the side who won a war then declared themselves to be “wrong”. Never. It’s ALWAYS might makes right. The “good” guy always wins, because winning is the only “good”, since it is defined by the victors. Existence is good. “What is happiness? The feeling that power increases”-Nietzsche
Yes, Germany lost. And so did Athens in the Peloponnesian War. So, by your logic, Athens was wrong too.
And no, victors don’t always write the history. Here are some examples:
– Once again, it was the Athenians who wrote about the Peloponnesian War, even though they lost (Sparta didn’t write a thing).
– The Jews, time after time, in the Bible wrote how they were defeated by all sorts of kingdoms
– Josephus, a Jew, wrote about how the Romans successfully defeated a Jewish Rebellion and destroyed the Jewish Temple (the Romans hardly wrote about this event at all)
– When the Huns were taking over the Roman Empire, it was Roman historians who were writing about it, not the illiterate Huns
– The History of the Vikings were largely written by Europeans who were decisively attacked by them … never by the Vikings themselves
– The Mongols, who created the largest land empire of all time, hardly wrote anything down about themselves … the people they conquered, on the other hand, did
– The British have written copious amounts on the Hundred Years War, which they lost
– The accounts of the Fall of Constantinople were written by Greeks fleeing from the city captured by the Ottoman Turks
– The Iroquois Confederacy successfully exterminated the Huron Tribe and the European missionaries allied with the Hurons … but it was the missionaries who wrote the history, whereas the Iroquois didn’t write a thing
– The British have written things on the American Revolution, but we all know how that ended up
– Tons of history have been written about the American Civil War by Southerners who are outspokenly Pro-Confederate (in fact, most history written about the war is written by Southerners)
– After Germany lost World War I, the Germans were writing history about it, namely to explain how the allies were evil and had mistreated them (and these loser historians ultimately empowered Nazi Germany)
– Even after World War II, the history about what went on within Germany largely were derived from Nazi memoirs
– Most history written about the Vietnam War were written by American Historians
Relatedly, many people in the US (including Abraham Lincoln) said that the US was wrong in waging (and winning) the Mexican-American War.
“What is happiness? The feeling that power increases.” An idiotic quote to be sure. But what else can you expect from poor Nietzsche?
– First of all, what does this have to do with might makes right?
– If someone “feels” powerful, but is not, are they still happy? Is manhood just about “feeling powerful” even if you’re a pathetic loser? Nietzsche seemed to be that way. He also went mad.
– Power is simply “the ability to do something.” But people can choose to do things that would obviously make them unhappy. Some power may provide one with the ability to be happy, but if they’re too stupid to know what to do with it, they’ll probably use it to screw their lives up more. (that’s why rich people have high suicide rates)
Might doesn’t necessarily make things right but can make other believe something is right for a time (not always though). No matter how mighty you are, you can’t make 2+2=5. 2+2=4 is right no matter what.
Guys, it’s time to stop being Nietzschean bitches. Nietzsche makes the male mind retarded. You have to suspend your logic and cloud your mind with emotion in order to really believe the irrational garbage Nietzsche is spewing. Part of being a man is using your brain and not rely on untenable, pseudo-intellectual bullshit like “Might makes Right.”
TO the winner go the spoils. One of the “spoils” just so happens to be the historians writing your government approved history books.
And I love the comment “Might makes REALITY.” It certainly does not always make “right.”
I’m pretty sure the US government declared itself to have overstepped in the annihilation of the native Americans.
Insightful. Why don’t you write an article?
If you dont like reading Nietzsche,just read the Iliad of Homer you ‘ll find the same concepts, Might makes Right, Agamemnon does not do just things but he has the power,and he is just ,because of that.Stop being a leftish bitch and aknowledge that when everything else fails might and power is what counts.Regarding History obviously we dont mean who exactly writes the paper but what consitutes the reasons,the moral,the ideas,the cause and effects ,what was right and wrong to do during wartime. Might make thinks right means more like Might make things just or good,its ethics and morality not mathematics.dropping an A bomb is always a good example to understand the concept.Americans (might made right) by dropping that thing killing civiliians without warning,while Hitler was wrong for making attrocities.
Yea, read the Iliad, Agamemnon the leader of Greeks brought plague onto them and bad moral. For doing wrong to Achilles. Morality is important to good order and that is what actually makes good armies and victors who have good behind them.
Respect to you man, well written. It is interesting to see how people think they can be strong by throwing out justice and morality out of the window.
When actually when you read history, especially ancient history which is ridden with moral lessons.
Successful application of Might makes Right.
Krshwunk, you make a good point, but the point would be better received without the ALL CAPS, multiple exclmaations, “singing hymns to Hitler,” and the modifiers “fucking” and “totally.”
The tone is sort of that of a Jezebel writer on her period.
I’m sorry if people were offended by that one sentence I wrote in ALL CAPS. I’m sorry for using more than one exclamation point in a row. And I’m sorry for saying the F word. And I’m sorry for saying “Hitler.”
Actually, nope.
I assume you’ve taken issue with my argument but you can’t come up with a rational response, so you decided to bring up this nit-picky bullshit.
If I sound like a “Jezebel writer on her period” I’ll have to take your word for it. Unlike you I don’t read that stuff.
You’re trying too hard. I gave you credit for a good point, and said you should drop the histrionic language. Instead you took grave offense and upped the ante.
Essentially, you’re saying I should sound less “angry.” The simple fact of the matter is that I’m very angry at this article and what it represents. And I don’t apologize for that. You try and dismiss my anger as befitting of a woman because, I suspect, you think my point shallow and unimportant.
Oh, but you said I had a good point? Can you see how it seems like a lie after you compared me to a menstruating woman? In the future, when you pay someone respect, don’t try to cut off his balls.
I actually thought your points were good and that there was insight in them (basically: even if you’re strong, if you’re a bully nearby nations will ally and destroy you and that’s what happened to the Greeks + keeping slaves is more trouble than its worth; I already knew Nietszche was a little retarded), but the histrionic tone is really grating.
Ρε αρχίδη καμία σχέση δεν έχουν οι αρλούμπες που γράφεις εσύ με το παραπάνω άρθρο. Μάθε πρώτα να διαβάζεις, βγάλε το κεφαλάκι σου από τη χέστρα και μετά τα λέμε καραγκιοζάκο ψυριζοανελβλαξ!
Οι Αθηναίοι ηττήθηκαν στον πελοποννησιακό πόλεμο ναι αλλά η αίγλη της Αθήνας συνέχισε και μετά την ήττα τους και επί Αλεξάνδρου και επί Πύρρου μέχρι και την Ρωμαική κατοχή σε αντίθεση με τη Σπάρτη που σβίστηκε από το χάρτη κυριολεκτικά… όσο για τα υπόλοιπα περί Νίτσε και φεμινισμού άντε λύσε το οιδιπόδειο που έχεις με τη βουλγάρα τη μάνα σου και μετά να πιάσεις στο στόμα σου τον μεγαλύτερο φιλόσοφο του 20 ου αιώνα… βλάχο άντε στο διάολο!
A better way to put this is that there is always a predator-prey relationship between humans to one extent or another. It may be light, friendly and mutually beneficial, but someone is always getting more out of the relationship. There are no exceptions.
Samseau is right to say that in this world there is very seldom karma in this world and your notions of morality and afterlife justice will not help you in this world. They may help you in the next world if there is a next world. Even Jesus of Nazareth, a Jew in the 1st century A.D. and founder of the Christian religion, noted that if you follow him and his morality then you can expect savage persecution and maybe death done to you. I’m Christian and Catholic, and even I know this.
Any examples you gave above about Vietnam and Afghanistan simply mean that the strong or predator thought he was a stronger predator than he actually is or was, and that he, she or they miscalculated how much of prey the other one was. All too often, the predator gets smashed by the prey because the prey is really the predator in disguise and the predator ignorantly, stupidly or in delusion believes himself, herself or themselves to be the predator while not realizing the truth which is that he, she or they are the prey. The USA couldn’t do anything with Vietnam or now with Afghanistan because the USA isn’t ruthless and effective enough to run a hegemony although it is militarily strong. Even the USSR wasn’t effective and ruthless enough. After Alexander the Great’s death, Afghanistan was ruled by one of his Generals and there was for hundreds of years the Greco-Bactrian kingdom too. In fact, Alexander the Great founded the cities of Bagram and Kandahar. I’m a former U.S. Army Soldier and veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars by the way.
This was the hardest lesson for me to learn, that there is no “justice” or “right” and “wrong”, there is the strong who make the rules and the weak who toe the line. Everything else is window dressing.
“From Sandy Hook to London Tower,
From Jaffa to Japan,
They can take who have the power,
And they may keep who can.
This is the law of heav’n and hell,
Stupendous and divine,
The highest holiest law of all
That governs mine and thine.”
-taken from “Might is Right” by Ragnar Redbeard
It would certainly seem that way. I suspect that what keeps many men from adopting The Might Are Right behavior could be a common underlying fear that there perhaps might be something after this life; and that how we conduct ourselves during our physical life determines our fate after we come to pass. This is a common theme in a lot of religions. But even numerous atheists prefer to take the high road for their own individual reasons. It’s a personal choice. But as we look at it, what is major motivating factor that prompts men to be king of the hill? To kill each other? To act like a complete douche-bag? What is there awaiting us as we acquire more resources and power?Answer: It’s a pretty smile with a hairy hole attached that’s what; yup, a hormonal driven animal. Some of you may have heard of Manosphere blogger Stardusk. A while back he did a broadcast where he asserts that the Patriarchy is equally as gynocentric as a matriarchy society ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahz7vWEPxeY&list=UUrEtDxWkIa6YTyTLDqKdqUw&index=13 ). If men are to ever make the next big leap in evolution, they are going to have to pull their heads out their asses and realize they have been biologically programed to pursue female affection and attention at all costs. From this they must objectively and truly evaluate this cost and ask if it is worth it, and if there are morally better and cheaper methodologies. If women were spreading their legs for morally decent men instead of power hungry brutes, then we would see the male populous lining up to save the world. But that aint happening in our lifetime.
Keep suspecting, Sherlock. You are lost down a blind trail of investigation because you have no imagination beyond retrofitting a motivation to fit a pre-determined conclusion (a.k.a. your own naïve faith) about power.
If “might makes right” then why discuss “right” at all? Whence comes the idea that “might” should even enter the same discussion with “right”? How did such a silly formulation — so silly that a couple knuckleheads on the internet could refute it — ever become so controversial?
It’s because right has a might all its own. Even if it is a false hope, it is resident in man’s breast enough to cause men to make it real. Men will fight to the death over these preposterous myths. Nietzsche tried to explain it away as simply the morality of the enslaved. Fine. But is there not real power in the slave’s rebellion? A might which will snuff out the theoretical pontifications of armchair moralizers like you addicted to the smell of each others’ brain farts?
You are the kind of Panglossian faux-intellectual who will keep to his theoretical constructs even as they topple down and kill you. You will insist that might makes right even as the righteous are mightily putting you in your place.
No, “might makes right” is the true slave morality: it comes from the perspective of people on the bottom, looking up, the powerless who can only see how power precludes their climbing to the heights. So they obsess over it, believing that all they need to perfect their will is to add some strength to it — the kind of strength which true nobility takes too much for granted to ever analyze it so minutely as the slave.
Matt
I get his point, or at least I think I do. Still how dreadfully boring. I only to made it to about the 19 minute mark. Only so many ways to make the point and a voice that commands little or no interest.
The banking families are the scourge of the planet. This is who is destroying the west and the world today.
villify wealth and control and you will never let yourself have it. there are 2 types: the ones with control and those being controlled. as long as you take to the notion that the powerful are your enemy you will always belong to the latter.
This is the infallible wisdom of well-dressed-fed-educated-slaves.
You do not seize political power for yourself or transfer it to other people. You destroy power and make information education available to everyone.
“This world bows only to the strong, who do as they please, while the weak struggle to stay above the rising tides of history.’
Struggle on then…while Mr. Strong Guy is wearing himself out…the weak guy struggling is having the heart to become stronger. The strong become weak and the weak become strong.
Let us always be weak.
hahahahaha ok.
Hmm yes we should ‘keep in mind’ who are the strong and who are the weak but we can choose, on an individual level, to not become pagan barbarians ourselves.
Lord Byron, a great man, started off as a clubfoot semi-cripple and built himself up as a boxer. With his fighting abilities he defended bookish kids from bullies at his public school. He died fighting for independence for Greece, a small country, against the Ottoman Empire.
Might always makes right. Great article. One of the best on this site.
I understand what the writer is driving at here, and agree with a lot of it. However — the universe is not so black and white.
For example:
The Mafia had a moral code. When that moral code was broken — and no better example of that code being broken than by my namesake who just killed EVERYBODY that got in his way– so it followed the Mafia was all but destroyed.
And Athens today? An absolute non entity in the world, apart from a few headlines about their fiscal ineptness.
Bravo. I’m loving the historical narratives, Samseau.
One of the first rules of International Relations: Hard power is the only power that counts.
“You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynihan ( US Senator – NY State)
Athens did suffer inordinately during the war – starvation and pestilence, for instance. Their supremacy in the Aegean was totally broken.
Power has tendency to triumph in the immediate. However, without obtaining moral authority, it lacks staying power. Lose moral authority, and it requires more blood and treasure to accomplish your will. Lose moral authority, and power soon declines thereafter. History abounds with this truth.
I am afraid that the United States will find this truth soon enough.
nietzsche said this best. this is the articulation of his master and slave morality, the master is concerned about the good and the bad, the slave is concerned about the good and the evil. the difference between bad and evil are the most important thing a man can learn on this subject. it is the difference between the masculine and the feminine.
a man wrongs you as a master by taking something that you value, thus the master will take something that he values. a man wrongs you as a slave by treating him worse than he does another, thus the slave will appeal to the crowd.
taxation is fine by the slave’s standards, as long as it is levied on the rest of the crowd, taxation is wrong by virtue of a master because regardless of what is happening to others, it is a personal attack upon personally accumulated wealth.
the state is the ultimate alpha male and must be treated as such, even if is made up of a strange conglomeration of squares ‘just doing their job’ that could be destroyed when speaking to them one-on-one. the slave morality is being harnessed, i don’t know or care who, but i’m convinced they are so far ahead of us on here philosophically, with articles and thoughts like this, we’re not doing badly, but we have so far to go.
Slave morality is characterised not by resulting in results that are good for selfinterest, but for restricting results for others.
Slavemorality is invented by the intellectually gifted but afraid. Those who don’t have the physicality to dare stand alone. These weak and afraid intellectuals invented christianity, marxism, feminism etc.
I bet you that if you looked at a 500 ad high priest he would look exactly as weak and pathetic as a modern socialist man.
The strong/brave AND smart are the elite and they may seem like gods for the most time, but once in a while the herd turns into agressive group think and kills the elite. It has happened over and over. Never underestimate the viciousness of the herd when spurred by the false priesthood.
You see it played out in how the mob suddenly begins to care about some Kony dude online or how beta phags on 4-chan will harass someone without cause. Herd rage and it is the false priests who pander to them.
I think slave morality is rather the codifying than the invention of the collective jealousy of those with power by those that do not wish to better themselves to achieve it, it is the ‘rationalisation hamster’ in a way, working to find reasons for not desiring power and denigrating those that are able to hold it: appeals to the higher numbers of weak people is one of the best ways, but in doing this personal worth must be ignored.
Ramseau, I love your articles. Well written, well thought and oh so inspiring.
There are a few things in the comments I would like to adress:
First, the fact that Spartans had Greek slaves was in no way, shape or form unique.
What was unique was that they turned a whole polis into state slaves, the Helots and allowed them to keep their identity as a polis intact.
That, and the fact that the Spartans were outnumbered badly by the Helots and the Perioikoi made it necessary to rely on a system of state terror and constant vigilance just so that Sparta, the city proper, would still be there when they returned from a campaign.
In fact they were very reluctant to go on campaigns for exactly that reason, often they only sent what one would call military advisors to their alies, which was often more than enough.
As for the Athenian empire, it developed out of the Delian League in which Athens was the natural leader because it was the greatest sea power, the largest Greek polis and it shared ethnical ties with the island states, since it was the only Ionian city that had survived the Dorian invasion more or less intact.
However, those city states more and more relied to payments to fulfill their obligations, which led to Athens controlling more and more ships and their army to become more and more experienced because it saw most of the action,
Slowly, but surely the Leagues contributions were de facto a form of tribute and the Athenians behaved like masters when at first they were seen as the primus inter pares.
That however, lead to their downfall, because one of the deciding factors in their downfall, because their “allies” turned on them whenever they could.
Turns out, forced allegiences break down exactly when you need them the most,
Which would be an alternative moral to the story:
Power waxes and wanes and if you go for every concession you possibly can when you have the absolute upper hand you better never, ever slip or the pack will turn on you.
So, while it is wise to recognize the power that you have, you will not use it wisely if you do not take its transient nature into account.
The golden rule still applies, out of sheer self interest.
Still one of the best articles here!
In the end, Athens got whipped by Sparta, Sparta got whipped by Thebes, Thebes got whipped by Alexander the Great, and then the Romans came and whipped everybody.
If history taught us anything is that no one stays on top forever.
I find it interesting that so many in the androsphere seem to long for a return to the law of the jungle, wherein the strong man today dominates the weak but only until a stronger man than he comes along. They seem to believe that the strong gain nothing from morality. That their strength will always get them what they want. But as Thomas Hobbes observed, such a morality must lead to lives that are “… solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
But the consequences are much worse than that! Without morality society beyond the jungle tribe is impossible. It is tribalism, also known as “identity politics”, that will destroy civilization.
Here is the full quote from Hobbes:
“Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of War, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them with all. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.”
It is one thing to recognize the genetic predisposition of women to be attracted to the alpha male and seek to mimic those traits by learning game if you are not a natural alpha. It is another thing entirely to fall for the false idea that Might makes Right simple because “nature” seems to reward it with mere survival. Man was created with a brain which is capable of living for MORE than survival. With his brain and consciousness he can create and add to his existence Meaning and Beauty and Love and Honor and Knowledge and Science and Philosophy and Goodness. Things which do NOT exist in any appreciable amounts in jungle culture. Just look at the entire history of Africa!
Can somebody tell me why I have to scroll down through all these shit click bait advertisements ?